* Background is here if you need it. Fran Spielman…

As for the Bears’ quest for a new stadium, [House Speaker Chris Welch] sought to temper remarks he made recently seemingly suggesting that the team could gain some traction on public funding for infrastructure if they shifted their Chicago focus away from the lakefront site south of Soldier Field and toward the old Michael Reese hospital site.

“People want to see tax dollars being used to uplift people who need it—not subsidize stadiums for the wealthy. Whether it’s a stadium at Michael Reese or a stadium in Arlington Heights,” Welch said.

“I made a comment that the Michael Reese site is a different conversation…because you would be talking about infrastructure with road fund dollars. But, we haven’t even had that conversation.”

…Adding… More from the interview…

Q: Should the Bears focus - if they want to stay in Chicago - on Michael Reese? Is the lakefront dead? Should it be and can a better case be made for Michael Reese, which would help spur development in a part of city that needs it?

Welch: I want to be clear about something, you know, just so that we can stay focused on what’s really important here in the next few months, the only discussion about the Bears Stadium in Springfield is in the media.

Right now, people want to see tax dollars being used to uplift people who need it, not subsidized stadiums for the wealthy. I want to be clear about that. Whether it’s the current stadium at Soldier Field, whether it’s a stadium at the Michael Reese site or a stadium in Arlington Heights, taxpayers do not want to see taxpayer money subsidizing that. I made a comment that the Michael Reese site is a different conversation, a conversation that the Bears haven’t even had, because you would be talking about infrastructure, Road Fund dollars. We haven’t even had that conversation.

Q: But should we have it? I’ve seen the plans. They’re beautiful, and you can see the lakefront from there. It is a site that could really be spectacular for the city. Do you think the Bears should give up on the lakefront and if they want to stay in Chicago, focus exclusively on Michael Reese, where you say infrastructure funds might be made available?

Welch: I think we should be talking about tax dollars being used for the people who need it, not subsidized stadiums for the wealthy. If the Bears want to build a stadium with private dollars, and they do it with at the Michael Reese site, you know, they should go for it. And I certainly would love to see them develop an underdeveloped neighborhood like the Bronzeville area.

Q: Is that better than the lakefront?

Welch: Oh, I think it gives them less opposition. You don’t have to deal with Friends of the Parks and things of that nature. And I think that gives them an opportunity to own their own stadium, but those are things that the Bears have to decide.

Q: But you’re saying flat out, there would be no subsidy for the stadium itself, and they never asked for that. But they need infrastructure help, and they need access to the hotel tax that funded, whatever, Rate Field, or whatever it’s called now for the White Sox.

Welch: Is there a question there?

Q: Well, yeah, because they never asked for stadium subsidy. They asked for infrastructure help. Are you saying that the only infrastructure help would be at Michael Reese and not for the lakefront, or [crosstalk].

Welch: Let’s be clear on what the ask was, what the conversation had been the last couple of years, is to grant authority for the Illinois sports facilities authority to extend bond authority to another location and basically use the dollars from bonding authority at the Sports Authority to help pay for their stadium. That’s a taxpayer subsidy. They did ask for that multiple times, and taxpayers don’t want us to do that. They want to see taxpayer dollars right now being used to uplift people who need it, and that’s what we’re going to focus on.

Q: So you’re saying that you’re not willing to use the stadium authority and its bonding authority to help them in any way, to help finance a stadium, no matter where it is, and the only help they can get anywhere is infrastructure?

Welch: People want to see tax dollars being used for the people who need it, not subsidized stadiums for the body. Take that how you want.

Q: It’s not an increase. They say it’s a hotel tax that’s in place right now at a stadium authority created for that purpose, and all they need is to extend those bonds. You’re not willing to consider that?

Welch: Right now, I’m focused on the things that are going to help people around the kitchen table. Talking about a Bears stadium, that’s not it.

Q: Is that a flat no?

Welch: What I’m saying very clearly is that the only ones talking about a Bears stadium are the folks in the media. We’re focused on kitchen table issues in Springfield. We’re not going to give a taxpayer subsidy to build a stadium, whether it’s football, baseball, soccer. We’re not going to subsidize stadiums for the wealthy.

Please pardon all transcription errors.